News from Kodak Alaris and Fujifilm

[J enea]

i have 4 rolls of plus-x left, but 220 rolls. so i am hoping for
1) any film in 220
2) plus x

 

[Skiff]

i have 4 rolls of plus-x left, but 220 rolls. so i am hoping for
1) any film in 220

We should remain realistic: 220 is dead. And it will remain dead.
The market is too small, and the production too expensive. The manufacturers have explained that several times: 220 would cost more than double than 120. And at that price only a tiny amount of people would buy it (resulting in even higher prices to be profitable).
In the past the market for 220 film was mainly driven by fashion photographers. Most of the demand came from them, and not from the amateurs/enthusiasts.
But the enthusiasts are now the major market for medium format film. And they prefer format 120. They don't have to shoot lots of rolls "in a hurry" like professional fashion photographers.

Some time ago on APUG one of the former CEOs of Ilford (Simon Galley) has explained all that in a very detailed way. Ilford e.g. would have to invest in a complete new machine for 220 converting. This investment would even further increase the price.

For those who want more shots and shorter reloading times the best way is to use 4.5x6 format (more shots per roll) and cameras with changeable film magazines: So you can load several magazines with film and then you just have to change the magazine in a shooting, which is very quick.
The classic case in fashion photography for example.

 

[JPSuisse]

Jan, thanks for posting that article. I am finding that this film group here in my absence has become a bit defensive. Many threads start with "stay out if you are not a film fan," etc.

I have one role of Plus-X left. Made me quite excited to see that a re-introduction of that looks like it has a chance. I bought some P3200 last week to test that.

I have been lost since Neopan 1600 (@ 650) and Plus-X were canceled. Literally I stopped shooting as the only other film I had that I got good results from was Pan F, and shooting only an ISO 50 film just is to restrictive.

For us with low competencies in dialing in development processes, we need some stability in the film market. I played with quite a few films and developers to try find a suitable alternative but couldn't.

Let's see, at least I like what I am hearing.

 

[Rob-F]

I have been lost since Neopan 1600 (@ 650) and Plus-X were canceled.

I was disappointed that these two films were discontinued, and doubly disappointed about losing Plus-X. I'll take this opportunity to encourage Kodak to re-introduce Plus-X. I'll buy it, and I'll shoot it! Hope Kodak reads this.

 

[Ste_S]

Rather than more B&W from Kodak (I'm perfectly happy with Tri-X and TMax) I'd like some more C41, especially higher speed. I'd like Ektar in 400ISO and for Kodak to take back the 800ISO consumer film in house that they sell to Lomography.

For Fuji of course we need the B&W back

 

[telenous]

It makes sense to bring back Plus-X. Not only was it an absolutely beautiful film but it also allowed for small exposure inaccuracies, par for the course when using older mechanical cameras. Kodak TMax 100 can be very nice too but it does benefit a lot more than Plus-x from AE exposure.

Kodak, just do it. We want Plus-x back.

.

 

[michaelwj]

Looking at it having recently stopped shooting film, there aren’t many holes in the Kodak product line.

In C41 there is Ektar 100 and then Portra 160/400/800. Replacing Portra 800 with a 1600/3200 version would fill a hole (400 handles 800 well enough), and maybe adding a 400 Ektar might make sense.
In BW there is TMax 100/400/3200 and Tri-X 320/400. A slow speed traditional grain film could fit in.
In E6, a 400 speed slide film would be nice.

With two more colour films; 400 Ektar and 400 E6, and one more BW film; 100 Tri-X style film the range would have virtually no holes. I don’t think Ilford has any holes in their lineup.

Of all those, only one would get me back into film, a 400 E6. If they released that I’d buy another film camera.

 

[telenous]

A faster Ektachrome, e.g. 200 or 400 would be very interesting, no doubt about that.

 

[ka7197]

In the past the market for 220 film was mainly driven by fashion photographers. [...] For those who want more shots and shorter reloading times the best way is to use 4.5 × 6 format (more shots per roll) and cameras with changeable film magazines ...

When I have to shoot so much and so fast that frequent re-loading would become a nuisance then I won't use medium-format film in the first place—but 35-mm film, or better yet, digital.

My medium-format camera is for contemplative work and for that, 120 film is just fine. So, while I'd appreciate the resurrection of 220 film (my camera can use it), I probably wouldn't buy it ... I definitely wouldn't buy it when one roll of 220 was more than two rolls of 120.

 

[Prest_400]

I'd say Portra 400 modified would do an Ektar 400, they both share the Vision 3 tech but portra is much more tame... and did away with the NC/VC duality. Given the market, rationalizing both films into one was what they pursued.

A 400 E6 would be interesting, but given the R&D difficulties it may be quite a stretch to modify from E100.

It's interesting how they want to bring TMZ and E100 into 120, the former never existed in medium format even back on the heyday of film.

Something like HIE and EIR would be fun but an R&D strech for a niche.

Fuji let's see, positive voices say that the price increase is to help sustain the smaller production.

I'd love to see 220 again, as makes the Fuji 6x9 16 exposures. Great for travel. Got a frozen pack of 160NS 220 I got fresh. The last remaining in 220 together with Velvia 100. I guess Fuji's 220 machines are long gone, and the order of discontinuance was just from stock. kodak did some 220 up to 2014 and it was more than twice 120 in price.

 

[webOSUser]

I would love to see Plus-X back. I miss it and Verichrome Pan the most.

 

[charjohncarter]

I would love to see Plus-X back. I miss it and Verichrome Pan the most.

I vote for Verichrome Pan.

 

[maigo]

220 on an annual order basis from Ilford or Kodak would be gratefully accepted by the film community. Even if it is more than twice the price of 120 it is very useful for travel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[webOSUser]

As long as it is available in both 35mm and 120, I would be happy with Plus X or Verichrome Pan.

I vote for Verichrome Pan.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I can't see Kodak resurrecting Verichrome Pan. It was never available in 135.

 

[pschauss]

+1 on Plus-X (I can dream). I am still working my way through a 100' roll (expired 1976) which I bought from someone on Photrio last summer. Remarkably, I do get printable images from it.

 

[Dante_Stella]

I'm sure Kodak Alaris is looking forward to Fuji's price increase. With a 30% increase, we're about to find out the price elasticity of demand for Fuji films.

Also, I vote bring Verichrome back. Plus-X and PXP have been supplanted by other Kodak films in terms of function. Verichrome is a different animal, and a forgiving b/w film would be a great entree for budding film photographers.

Dante

 

[sepiareverb]

I vote for Verichrome Pan.

Wouldn't that be amazing? And a good one to consider as it is a) medium speed b) has great latitude and c) has insane keeping properties both exposed and unexposed.

It was made in 110 and 126, so seems like 35mm could be possible. That would be a hoot - re-introduce a film in a new format!

 

[miha]

This one for me:

 

[bhop73]

Fujifilm's new marketing effort is a good step. Now if they would just stop discontinuing films. Not sure what films Kodak is considering reviving. Haven't heard much about the new Ektachrome since its roll out. Has everyone now shot their one roll out of curiosity and gone back to whatever they were shooting before?

I did that, (only two rolls) but mostly just because of the price. I don't project my photos, just scan them, so slides, while they look cool, just don't make much financial sense for me since it's harder to scan than negatives.